"While the auction has drawn attention to the precipitous fall of the once-mighty taxi industry, it does not reflect the hardship — and heartbreak — of individual owners like Mr. Isac. It is their stories that often get lost in the larger debate over new technology and commutes, and tell of the human cost of the city’s rapidly evolving transportation landscape."
they bought into a system that really shouldn't have existed. Investments that fail are tragic, but losses of this nature can't really be protected from those who make it (otherwise, there'd be moral hazzard).
you probably have a good job due to all kinds of luck (though im sure you don't think there was any luck) and then quickly judge these people for making a stupid decision. Meanwhile these people have very limited options and buying a medallion was the closest thing they could do as an investment into their future. is it a racket? maybe, but so is the stock market and corporate jobs. just because they are still working out, does not mean they will forever. Much like medallions it's all a myth that will work as long as it's not disrupted by something else. So these people put so much money on the line to buy into this system and work 2-3 shifts/day driving your drunk ass from club to club and all you can do is look back and call them stupid for buying into something that was impossible to predict that would be disrupted so quickly. it's so easy to turn around after a disruption and call anyone in the disrupted industry a fool for buying into "a system that shouldn't have existed"
/end rant.
For those immigrants who bought into a city-regulated industry, yes.
That was the red flag right there
Government does not allow Uber like systems. Also Taxis are very expensive especially in smaller cities. And no, many does not behave nicely. They are also reckless in traffic.
So we stuck to this monopoly and nobody questions. Why is driving a Taxi a profession in this age of technology? Anybody with decent driving skills can do this yet Taxi drivers are the first to prevent any competition. This pattern is quite noticeable in many other areas of industry. They make restrictions and regulations with good intentions, later it turns to a monster.
Uber is banned in Denmark as well, but this is because there are absolutely no security requirements for Uber drivers, no mandatory first aid traning, nothing.
Proponents of Uber call it a "ridesharing system", but it really is a taxi system, and must abide by the same rules, namely driver training, verified fare metering and other security and fairness measures.
Uber has refused to respect the rules, so they have been banned from operating here, until they can abide by the rules, which are in place mostly for passenger safety and to prevent fraud.
"Why is driving a Taxi a profession in this age of technology? Anybody with decent driving skills can do this"
This can only come from a person who does not know what it actually takes to be a taxi driver (not just a person who happens to drive a taxi, but an actual bona fide taxi driver). There is a certain level of customer service, competency and training involved. You can't just blindly navigate by GPS, you have to know the city, know the traffic, know the shortcuts that a GPS can only guess at.
I do not disagree that it is much more enjoyable to drive around with a taxi driver who knows the city, proud of his work and has a "how may I help you attitude"; I paid 50 quid for a short ride in London 20 years ago and found that quite enjoyable - but if it wan't for the monopoly (which uber has managed to subvert, often illegally), you wouldn't have to wait until 2015 to get "just the transportation and nothing else" - which is what most people actually need.
They advertise this as a way to get a job but when the drivers are fined for driving unlicensed they absolve themselves by claiming it is the responsibility of the driver.
They should not keep complete confidence in this strategy, as they have been sued by their (ex-)drivers for this and settled out of court. (Which may very well be a more lucrative strategy than doing the actual driving, I don't know about that.)
In Turkey and likely in other countries there are regulations for commercial drivers such as they need special health certificates etc but everybody knows it is turns to be just another paper you can buy. If Uber does not follow the regulations you mention, people has a right to choose anyway. The only regulation necessary is to make it deliberate in the cars. A sign telling "This driver does not have first aid training".
Crucially, exactly none of requirements in the delta between the new Danish rules and eg. the London minicab rules has anything to do with protecting customers.
It is a rather ingenious "free market monopoly hybrid" that I can't think of existing in other fields.
I wouldn't be surprised if banks, cosmetologists and realtors were like this too, but I don't know enough about them.
No. The AMA does not have any control over how many students are accepted to medical school. The AAMC does, and there technically is a cap, but they've been intentionally increasing it steadily for over a decade in order to increase the supply of doctors.
However, even that's irrelevant, because the number of people graduating medical school isn't a bottleneck for the supply of physicians - residency programs are. There are far more doctors than there are residency slots, and the AAMC doesn't control residency positions. So whatever cap they have at this point doesn't affect anything other than the number of people who graduate medical school and end up having to get a job in a different field.
It's the other way around. Resdiency positions are extraordinary expensive to offer - remember that this is where doctors actually receive their clinical training. Medicare funds them, because otherwise hospitals would have no incentive to offer them (they would lose money on each resident).
Housing as a cartel.
Riding in a New York taxi is unpleasant and expensive, but since it was a monopoly it had no incentive to do better and there were never any real consequences for failing to provide decent service – even as it became increasingly aggressive in soliciting outrageous tips and jamming advertising down its customers throats.
But it’s not a monopoly anymore and that’s a good thing for New York. I won’t shed a tear for the taxi industry.